China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Iron Man]

US do have a debt problem, but at this point as long as US is able to maintain its military, it should not worry.

The way I see it US enjoy its current advantage mainly from 4 aspects. 1. Economy. 2.PR 3. Soft power 4. military.

1. Economy has suffered the most, since US let the bankers play casino with US housing/banking industry, it almost plummeted into a world wide depression. The legitimacy is of US economy's supremacy is gone. China is also challenging silicon valley, and trying to build up the new economic network right now with their trade lines. so I don't see US will maintain this monopoly for long, this will be the 1st pillar to crack.

2. Propaganda, US has always controlled the narrative of western world's opinion, and now look like Russia and the internet is doing a good job challenge it, and I see them losing more control. This will crack second.

3. Soft power, still holding up pretty good, Hollywood is still pretty dominate, US culture is still widely admired. For all that China is done, their soft power still sucks overseas.

4. Military, you can argue that US military's sense of invincibility has been very much shattered by Afghanistan/Iraq, however they fact that they still have 400+ bases all around the world, and the nations that let them host those bases, says much more.

And the most important thing of all, as long as they protect the Saudi and GCC, the Saudi will sell oil in USD. For better for worse, US is still the guarantor for security for most nations in the world. For this, China is no match, because they are trying to outplay US in the economic game, which is a smart move.

As long as US can maintain this vast military network, the they will be able to exchange printed piece of paper for goods and services. For that, maybe Donald knows something.

Economic strength does not derive from military strength, but rather always the reverse. The fact that the US maintains hundreds of bases overseas does not speak to whether it can sustain a robust, solid economy. In fact overspending on the military is the downfall of many past empires. The US is certainly not exempt from this. If it does not get its economic house in order, and judging by all the paid-off slimeballs in Congress it will not, then it will fall like every other imperially overstretched nation. It won't matter how many bases it has overseas.

 

[Gloire_bb]

The power disparity between the two is so vast

According to such logic, Norway should've dived below water during Cold war, the faster - the better.
Success or not, last time 2 months after Sino-Vietnamese war - Soviet warships appeared at Cam Rahn.
Not like there won't be any new contenders for that is considered to be one of the best natural harbors in region.
Chinese SCS bastion is already troublesome, but problems can be made worse than they're now.

But, what of it? The power disparity between the two is so vast, China will do what it can, and Vietnam will suffer as it mus

Well, you've already mentioned Sino-Vietnamese war.
Disparity between Soviet Union and China didn't let former to do anything to latter, in view of associated risks and larger picture.

 

[Blackstone]

According to such logic, Norway should've dived below water during Cold war, the faster - the better.
Success or not, last time 2 months after Sino-Vietnamese war - Soviet warships appeared at Cam Rahn.
Not like there won't be any new contenders for that is considered to be one of the best natural harbors in region.
Chinese SCS bastion is already troublesome, but problems can be made worse than they're now.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, since you know US lead an European alliance of NATO plus the willing against the Warsaw Pact. What alliance is Vietnam leading against China? Just in case you're not aware, none of the ASEAN nations supports Vietnam publicly against China. What about the US? Surely it would recognize Vietnamese sovereignty in SCS against China? But, no. We don't see that either. Facts are no one would support Vietnam's SCS claims. If you know differently, kindly link your source.

Well, you've already mentioned Sino-Vietnamese war.
Disparity between Soviet Union and China didn't let former to do anything to latter, in view of associated risks and larger picture.

What do you mean China isn't doing anything? What do you call the artificial islands in the SCS? How about the new Navy and Marines China is building and training? And then there's the Belt and Road Initiative throughout the SCS, Indian Ocean, and Persian Gulf areas.

China is gaining control in the SCS, and unless stopped, it will dominate it in the coming decade. The window to stop that is closing, and only a "no holds barred" effort initiated and lead by US and allies could stop China. But, that could mean war... nuclear war.

 

[sanblvd]

Economic strength does not derive from military strength, but rather always the reverse. The fact that the US maintains hundreds of bases overseas does not speak to whether it can sustain a robust, solid economy. In fact overspending on the military is the downfall of many past empires. The US is certainly not exempt from this. If it does not get its economic house in order, and judging by all the paid-off slimeballs in Congress it will not, then it will fall like every other imperially overstretched nation. It won't matter how many bases it has overseas.

Well of course, that is the conventional view of military and economy, and its the reason why USSR collapse, what I'm saying is that when it come to US, the situation is different. Because right now, people fear a world without US than the ones that US is annoying them right now. USSR on the other hand, was hated by all of its allies, US is still enjoying popularity in many of the nations that allow it to have bases for their own domestic purposes, for example, Japan wants US bases to counter China, Europe wants US bases to counter Russia. Africa wants its bases to fight its own enemy etc...

US economy is ALREADY unsustainable for at least a decade. They are the only nation that prints IOU and people accept them like crazy, and they are the only nation that relay so much of their economy on consumer spending rather than manufacturing and investment.... and there is a reason for that.

 

[PiSigma]

Blackstone, I agree with your position here, I dont think Gloire understands how SCS connects with everything else here.

Gloire, the point Blackstone and I tried to make is that SCS is important to both parties, but Vietnam does not have an alliance system, hell it's not even liked by it's neighbours. Pretty much all the islands that Vietnam claims are equal distant between Vietnam and China, so Vietnam have no advantage. Also, China enjoys vastly superior advantage in air and naval assets even if we only consider the south fleet/southern theatre command.

If a conflict ever occurs between Vietnam/China, don't expect anyone to help either, which means Vietnam will get a trampling by the elephant next door. What I expect China will do is let Vietnam attack one of their islands and claim early battle victory, then whip up a nationalistic frenzy for a counterattack on multiple fronts. 1 - island hope campaign on all the viet holdings in SCS or simplying bombard them since they are small real estate. 2 - blockade/missle strikes from the ocean, 100% of vietnam is within missle range. 3 - land armies from north like in 1979. they don't need to hold any land, just trash all industry along the way and set back vietnam's industry 20 years. In that case, Vietnam basically get nothing out of the conflict and is not worth pissing off China. Before Vietnam kept on winning wars is because of the gueilla war fighting style vs a occuping power, if no one is occuping, then vietnam's strength doesn't come into play here.

 

[vesicles]

Disparity between Soviet Union and China didn't let former to do anything to latter, in view of associated risks and larger picture.

Well, there is a fundamental and qualitative difference between the former Soviet/Sino disparity and the current Sino/Vietnam disparity. China in the 1960's was poor but still possessed immense strategic depth. Anyone who wanted to fight China even back then knew that they would have to sustain huge losses, directly on the battlefield and economically, even if the opponent knew they could win the war in the end. No one was and is willing to sustain that kind of casualty, militarily and economically.

That was why the US made sure the Korean War stayed in Korea. No one was allowed to attack any target inside China, even when they knew that was the only way to win the war. And China was able to fight the US-led UN coalition to a stalemate in 1953 when the Chinese literary had nothing. That's what you call strategic depth.

This was also why the former Soviets didn't want to start a shooting war with China in the 60's. They issued their soldiers with wooden sticks instead of firearms to prevent any possibility of a shooting war.

This was also why Nixon went to Beijing to normalize relations with China in 1972, even though china at the time was in a political, economic and social mess. Even in its worst shape, China's geopolitical position was so important that Nixon, a lifelong commmunist hater, had to abandon his long time ally Taiwan and form alliance with China in order to defeat the Soviets.

Vietnam on the other hand has no strategic depth. Vietnam was able to fend off attacks in the past mostly because of its terrain, which prevents effective use of advanced weapons. No one has hesitated when considering fighting Vietnam. The US hasn't. China hasn't. So don't ever think that whatever disparity there was between the Soviets and China in the 60's was anything like the disparity between China and Vietnam now.

 

[Equation]

Well, there is a fundamental and qualitative difference between the former Soviet/Sino disparity and the current Sino/Vietnam disparity. China in the 1960's was poor but still possessed immense strategic depth. Anyone who wanted to fight China even back then knew that they would have to sustain huge losses, directly on the battlefield and economically, even if the opponent knew they could win the war in the end. No one was and is willing to sustain that kind of casualty, militarily and economically.

That was why the US made sure the Korean War stayed in Korea. No one was allowed to attack any target inside China, even when they knew that was the only way to win the war. And China was able to fight the US-led UN coalition to a stalemate in 1953 when the Chinese literary had nothing. That's what you call strategic depth.

This was also why the former Soviets didn't want to start a shooting war with China in the 60's. They issued their soldiers with wooden sticks instead of firearms to prevent any possibility of a shooting war.

This was also why Nixon went to Beijing to normalize relations with China in 1972, even though china at the time was in a political, economic and social mess. Even in its worst shape, China's geopolitical position was so important that Nixon, a lifelong commmunist hater, had to abandon his long time ally Taiwan and form alliance with China in order to defeat the Soviets.

Vietnam on the other hand has no strategic depth. Vietnam was able to fend off attacks in the past mostly because of its terrain, which prevents effective use of advanced weapons. No one has hesitated when considering fighting Vietnam. The US hasn't. China hasn't. So don't ever think that whatever disparity there was between the Soviets and China in the 60's was anything like the disparity between China and Vietnam now.

Not to mention during the Korean War the US led forces couldn't stomach heavy losses or trade bodies to bodies with the Chinese and North Korean forces, that's why General McArthure was suggesting using the atomic bomb to end it.

 

[Iron Man]

Well of course, that is the conventional view of military and economy, and its the reason why USSR collapse, what I'm saying is that when it come to US, the situation is different. Because right now, people fear a world without US than the ones that US is annoying them right now. USSR on the other hand, was hated by all of its allies, US is still enjoying popularity in many of the nations that allow it to have bases for their own domestic purposes, for example, Japan wants US bases to counter China, Europe wants US bases to counter Russia. Africa wants its bases to fight its own enemy etc...

US economy is ALREADY unsustainable for at least a decade. They are the only nation that prints IOU and people accept them like crazy, and they are the only nation that relay so much of their economy on consumer spending rather than manufacturing and investment.... and there is a reason for that.

Just because the US enjoys privileged status as the world's policeman does NOT mean the world will accept unlimited money printing and unsound fiscal policy. In fact all signs are pointing to the exact opposite of this. Multiple countries have started setting up bilateral currency swaps that deliberately exclude the USD as an intermediary currency. Multiple countries have started accepting payment and paying for oil with non-USD currencies; the petrodollar is slowly unraveling as we speak. Multiple countries are sucking up all the gold and gold production in the world like there is no tomorrow (China probably most prominent among them). They sense danger on the horizon and are leaving the USD like rats off a sinking ship. And all of this has only been happening for the last several years.

BTW the USD is definitely NOT the only country that prints IOUs. Euro, Yuan, Yen, pound sterling are all printed money that is in excess of their countries' revenues and are not backed by anything except faith in their future ability to pay it back. No fiat currency has EVER survived, and for this exact reason. Also, people don't accept the USD "like crazy" anymore. China lost its status as largest foreign holder of US treasuries to Japan just last year. BOTH are actually dumping US treasuries, but China just happens to be dumping them faster than Japan.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Well, there is a fundamental and qualitative difference between the former Soviet/Sino disparity and the current Sino/Vietnam disparity.

Yup, it was larger between peak cold-war Soviet Union and post-cultural revolution China, if anything.
I shall remind you, what Iraqi army of 1991 was more modern overall than PLA.

All abovementioned - without nuclear capability, which for late 1970s China was... well, around current North Korean level(i.e. easily counterforceable).

That's what you call strategic depth.

Strategic depth was called nuclear-armed Soviet Union right behind with very real risk to launch European war.
Otherwise - McArthur already had necessary B-45 squadrons in the area.
Basically, same thing with Sino-Vietnamese war, but in other direction.

Again, you're trying to judge CW large conflict as modern one, but for a country with doubious deterrent.

They issued their soldiers with wooden sticks instead of firearms to prevent any possibility of a shooting war.

Lets avoid low quality urban legends. t-62 in Beijing tank museum is hardly wooden.

 

[vesicles]

Yup, it was larger between peak cold-war Soviet Union and post-cultural revolution China, if anything.
I shall remind you, what Iraqi army of 1991 was more modern overall than PLA.

Yet, Iraq was invaded, not china.

All abovementioned - without nuclear capability, which for late 1970s China was... well, around current North Korean level(i.e. easily counterforceable)..

China exploded its first atom bomb in 1964 and first hydrogen bomb in 1967.

I'm not sure if you actually understand what we are arguing here. We are not discussing how backward China was. We are talking about China's not-so-obvious strategic depth, which provides deterrence even when they looked deceptively weak.

Even when China was as weak as the NK now, the US still chose China over their long life ally Taiwan, which was a whole lot more advanced than China in the 70's. That attests my point: it's not the apparent disparity that determines alliance vs enemy. It's the strategic depth, which is determined by geopolitical positioning.

Do you see the US abandon South Korea and form an alliance with the NK? The US did that with China and Taiwan, when China is at its weakest point.

Again, my point: apparent disparity means nothing. It's the geopolitical and strategic depth.